forgottenrealmsfandomcom-20200223-history
Forgotten Realms Wiki talk:3 Sentence Rule
Despite the two weeks having passed with no objections, I still feel like this proposal doesn't define well enough when the 3 sentence rule applies and when it doesn't. Perhaps we can come up with some guidelines for this before it goes through to be a policy? Fw190a8 12:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC) I think a three sentence rule would be detrimental to the wiki as a whole due to the facts that; the wiki is a repository for all Forgotten Realms knowledge which should not be limited to only the larger content (or longer winded), some content only deserves a short comment (even if the comment is only to state that the subject was mentioned once in some obscure source), some sentences (such as this one) can contain a large amount of information due to a list-like nature or use of clauses and sub-clauses, and finally the users should not dictate content (what is and is not allowed, especially because "it's to little information" and the page "looks bad" with only a few sentences) as this wiki is for the Forgotten Realms, the Forgotten Realms dictates the site, brining with it vast amounts of information for some topics and vague hints of information for others. --Fizzygoo 21:43, 13 August 2007 (UTC) :* Maybe "3 sentences" isn't a good idea but I firmly believe some sort of guideline that differentiates when an article needs to be created about a subject should be put in place. This would have helped when we decided to create the dictionary pages rather than individual articles for each word of ever non-Common language. I believe the articles I cited in the project page were further evidence of this. While my means for correcting this was too vague to be practical if anyone else has an idea to correct what might become a point of future possible arguments (especially as the wiki grows) I hope this will at least get the ball rolling. Johnnyriot999 23:35, 13 August 2007 (UTC) :* The whole issue is a cycle! In the beginning we wanted as many articals as possible, so even a word or two about a subject was enough. Now we are getting bigger. We are now big enough (IMHO) that the structure and amount of articals is beginning to become difficult to manage. Realistically, this rule will become the "norm" or should be incouraged to become the norm. Should it be "A RULE", (IMHO) NO! We are still small enough that we do want people to write small articals about interesting subjects. I do think we should have a "bot" crawl though the articals and tag articals under a certain size (eg 100 characters) What should then happen, is some of those articals, we might find are apropriate to combine. I do however think we will always need page redirects and a lot of them. Generally this should be a "style Guide" not a "rule", IMHO Hurtzbad 22:12, 14 August 2007 (UTC) Categories for Redirects? Recently I hit the following case: I have removed links from rivers in Zakhara articles, about which mainly can be said that an important city lies at its banks, e. g. Al-Wahl and Hiyal, an thus fall under the 3 Sentence Rule. I have created redirects to the appropriate cities. Should these redirects now get categories, so that a person looking for all rivers can find them that way? Or should topics falling under the 3 Sentence Rule be considered so unimportant that they should also not be included into categories, where they might distract from their counterparts with own articles? Thanks for input. Daranios (talk) 09:21, October 3, 2012 (UTC) :I categorise redirects so that they can appear in the categories. For example, The Blue Stallion inn will show up in Category:Inns, Category:Locations in the Vast and so on, and someone looking for inns can find it, even thought there's little to say about it. If some information appears for the place later, the redirect can be expanded into an article. -- BadCatMan (talk) 09:39, October 3, 2012 (UTC) ::Great, then I will follow that example. Thanks. Daranios (talk) 15:17, October 4, 2012 (UTC)